Quantcast

«

»

Aug 17 2013

Barton Lies About Global Warming Too

After viewing this video, one can only assume that Barton has run out of lies about the Constitution and the founding fathers and has been forced to start lying about other things. He actually claims in this video that we haven’t had any global warming for the last 16 years. Never mind that the last decade was the hottest on record. That’s a fact, to which Barton has an allergic reaction.

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    exdrone

    He doesn’t even get the average temperature fact correct. The average high temperature in Texas is in the mid 90s (not 120), and average low temperature is in the mid 70s. These are 30-year statistical averages of daily high and low temperatures respectively. They are not due to cycles, unless he means the day-night cycle. I guess, now he has achieved his reputation as a failed historian, he feels the need to establish himself as a failed meteorolist before becoming a failed climatologist.

  2. 2
    Chiroptera

    Has anyone else noticed how people who publicly display their profound ignorance on one topic will usually proudly display their profound ignorance on lots of topics?

  3. 3
    alanb

    Chiroptera,

    Yes, there is even a name for that: crank magnetism.

  4. 4
    raven

    he feels the need to establish himself as a failed meteorolist before becoming a failed climatologist.

    He is also a failed biologist i.e. a creationist.

    And a failed human, i.e. a pathological but not very good liar.

    Crank magnetism is also known as polykookery. I’m sure Barton will find something else to fail at. The Flat Earth is still around for one.

  5. 5
    D. C. Sessions

    FWIW, the temperature of 120F is the all-time record high (in Seymour) for Texas (tied with the record for SD set in 2006). I think Barton might be excused for confusing “average” with “all-time record.” For him, it’s a relatively minor slip.

  6. 6
    freemage

    Ed, I know this is way off-topic for your post, but this seems in your bailiwick: Scott Lively ‘crimes against humanity’ case allowed to proceed by federal judge

  7. 7
    robertfaber

    It’s not Barton’s lie, he has just been parroting it. This has been going around for a couple years. What they do is take 1998, which was the 3rd hottest year on record, and compare it with all but two of the last 15 years, and proudly proclaim “see? it’s a flat line now”. Nevermind that every other year in the top 10 was from the last decade, that doesn’t fit the narrative they are trying to create.

    It’s the same shtick they pulled in 2009 with “look, the ice caps are recovering”, by showing 2007 as the minimum and 2008 and 2009 as having more ice mass. You don’t hear that one much anymore because in 2010, 2011, and 2012, it all went back down. And nevermind that in no year since 2007 has it come close to the ice mass of 2006, which was already one of the lowest of its time.

  8. 8
    colnago80

    1998 is an outlier because there was a particularly strong El Nino that year. By the way, we haven’t heard lately from Sir Lancelot, this blogs resident climate change denier.

  9. 9
    Who Cares

    @colnago80:
    And that is why that point is used by the deniers, to do so otherwise would show an upward trend that can’t be shoved under the rug.
    Due to a quirk of human nature this one will be showing up every 5 years (started in 2003) for decades.

  10. 10
    Michael Heath

    Denialist lies about temp. trends also reveal their delusional idiocy regarding how we fully observe climate change is in fact happening and it’s warming. That’s to understand the total net change in the earth’s energy budget, not merely as its expressed in one year by a mere one of several models tracking temperatures which they interpret different than credible climate scientists. E.g., we must also consider the marginal increase in heat energy which is sequestered in the ocean.

    And just like Republicans getting ever stupider and more in denial, we see the same with the climate change denialists. For years the less stupid ones were arguing that while temperatures were increasing, that didn’t matter because they demonstrated faith (no evidence) the climate wasn’t sensitive; damn the paleo evidence, current observations, or current model hindcasts. However these people are now refuting even their own past arguments by looking only at some cherry-picked temperature observations, imperfectly reported by them, and then falsely claiming that climate change isn’t even happening. That requires them to ignore/deny/avoid/ or fail to understand just about all the evidence we have.

    But they do get their jolt of dopamine acting out this play.

  11. 11
    imthegenieicandoanything

    Conservatives are simply all stupid, ignorant, insane and/or evil. Barton, like most of the big-time grifters on the ‘Mer’kin Conservative side, is one of the elite – someone actually evil.

    He never gives the slightest shit about lying, and clearly enjoys being able to lie on such a scale. And get well-paid for it. Nothing can be done but to debunk him, inform and educate those who aren’t entirely disabled by the Wingnut-Teabagger zombie virus, and wait till he self-destructs or dies, never having experienced a moment of truth, insight or love (punishment enough, but it doesn’t make up for the damage he’s done.)

    To live, often consciously, without hope of change as a human turd! That’s a conservative’s fate, and yet they continue to do it.

  12. 12
    anubisprime

    Like a little kiddy scooting around the grown-ups and stamping his footsies and lying about anything to get attention…any attention…poor little mite someone should take him to Disneyland for a treat…oh….wait!

  13. 13
    hunter

    chiroptera @2: I don’t think it’s even a matter of ignorance — Barton, like the right-wing extremists in general, has an agenda that takes precedence over everything else. When belief trumps reality, facts fall under the category of “collateral damage.” Add in the fact that “learning” is suspicious at best, and at worst the work of the Devil, and you get — David Barton.

  14. 14
    Sastra

    I want Barton to keep going. First he lies about the Constitution. A lot of people think he has credibility. Then he lies about global warming. More media attention.

    He then goes on to denying evolution (assuming he hasn’t done this from the start.) This is followed by warnings against “Western Medicine” and vaccines and endorsements of homeopathy and energy healing. Proceed then to Area 51 and the government cover-up of aliens followed swiftly by claims that the holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by a Jewish cabal of insiders who run the world. Now we’ve gotten to the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, and the Freemasons. No need to stop. Make it global; connect the dots. Bring up crop circles.

    Finally, you round it up with the Big One — David Icke’s shape-shifting reptilian overlords from outer space. With or without Hollow Earth Theory — take your pick.

    By this time, I suspect he’s lost the majority of former supporters and is now considered a credible source only to David Icke.

    So keep it going, Barton, keep it going. You’re on a roll. Don’t get off: double down!

  15. 15
    jameshanley

    @11, Conservatives are simply all stupid, ignorant, insane and/or evil

    The funny thing is this person probably thinks s/he is a deeper thinker than conservatives.

  16. 16
    lancifer

    Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry to Congress in April of 2013: ‘Since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature’

    Barton is probably referencing this well established fact.

    Depending on the data set used the “pause” in warming is even longer.

  17. 17
    lancifer

    No doubt Barton is reciting this anecdote in support of his ideologically motivated views, but the comments by others on this blog show that this behavior is not limited to those on the extreme right.

  18. 18
    martinc

    And it is ALWAYS 1998 they compare to. “No global warming in last 15 years!”, they say. Two years ago it was “No global warming in last 13 years!”. And they’ll keep referencing 1998, because if you reference 1997 or 1999 or any other year, the numbers go up. Soon there’ll be a year hotter than 1998, and they’ll keep quiet for a bit, but then two years later they’ll be comparing to THAT outlier year and saying: “No global warming in last 2 years!” Such farcical analysis is always available with data that is clearly trending upward but has a strong ‘noise’ component across the trend.

  19. 19
    colnago80

    Re martilnc @ #18

    Actually, there have been several years in the 2000s and beyond that were as hot or hotter then 1998. As has been fully explained , 1998 is an outlier do to an especially strong El Nino that year. Of course, this explanation is ignored by the deniers for whom it is inconvenient.

    As expected, the blogs resident climate change denier, Sir Lancelot, has shown up repeating the spurious claim that we should be comparing global temperatures with the outlier 1998 figures. He then cites Judith Curry whose credibility in the climate science community is about on a par with the credibility of Michael Behe in the evolutionary biology community. A Google search on Dr. Curry shows her most fervent admirers consist of Steve McIntyre, Marc Moreno, and Anthony Watts, shills for the energy companies all none of whom is competent to pontificate on the subject.

    I find it particularly interesting in the case of Anthony Watts, a congenital liar, who proclaimed before the Berkeley Climate Study that he would accept any conclusion reached by its principal investigator, UCB physics professor Richard Muller. When Muller’s results had the temerity to disagree with Watts’ predilections, Watts proceeded to engage in a smear campaign against the professor. This is how the deniers operate, smear smear, smear.

  20. 20
    lancifer

    Colnago80,

    Your post is emblematic of the general level of discourse on global warming climate change climate disruption. or whatever scary name they are calling it these days.

    You deride Watts for “smearing” Muller (a patently ridiculous lie) while smearing everyone that doesn’t agree with your preconceived, and politically motivated, opinions.

    I comment on this blog much less frequently on the topic of climate change since most of the comments are as vacuous and snide as yours.

    A small amount of research on your part would reveal that there is quite the conundrum in the field of climate science about the fact that temperatures are not increasing at the rate predicted by climate models.

    It may be that the “pause” is temporary and that some mechanism is sequestering the “missing” heat to the deep oceans (although there is little to no hard evidence to back up this ad hoc fix) or that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 is overstated by the current models.

    My money is on this last option and indeed several recent peer reviewed studies have cited evidence for this possibility.

  21. 21
    oranje

    And to chime in on Judith Curry, even cherrypicking her quote doesn’t work, because (via Andrew Revkin’s DotEarth blog on NYT):

    I’ve been in touch all week with Judith Curry, a seasoned climate scientist at Georgia Tech with a particular focus on hurricanes and warming. She has no skepticism about a growing human influence on climate. But she has split with many of her peers and frequently engages a certain batch of climate skeptics (most notably Stephen McIntyre). She says she’s deeply troubled by the tribal nature of some subsets of the climate science community and what she sees as ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data and interpretations of data for review and independent analysis.

    In other words, she is not a skeptic of human-caused climate change, and she is working with the community to improve climate models and engages the skeptical community.

    A conundrum on why models are not working properly is not cause to discard theories. That would be like a controversy in evolutionary biology making the theory of evolution in doubt. It isn’t.

  22. 22
    lancifer

    oranje,

    There is no disconnect between my post and the views expressed in the quote you referenced. Note the last line about “A conundrum on why models are not working properly …”.

    I also think that humans have influenced the climate, the pertinent science and policy question is to what extent.

    Also the question is how much and what, if anything, should be done to mitigate that influence. More and more evidence is pointing to humans having much less influence on the climate than stated by alarmists wishing to restructure the world’s energy infrastructure and dictate draconian changes to the way people live.

  23. 23
    colnago80

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #20

    You deride Watts for “smearing” Muller (a patently ridiculous lie) while smearing everyone that doesn’t agree with your preconceived, and politically motivated, opinions.

    Actually, it’s Sir Lancelot who is either seriously misinformed or is a liar. Watts has charged that Muller was never a climate change skeptic and was, in fact, a wolf in sheep’s clothing who snookered the Koch Brothers who contributed in part to his research.

    Sir Lancelot keeps making the same false claim, that global warming has slowed down or stopped, which is based on the 1998 temperature result. I have explained twice in this thread what happened in 1998, an explanation that Sir Lancelot has yet to refute.

    Contrary to liar Sir Lancelot’s claims that the models are overestimating warming, the reverse is true, when matched against current data, based on previous data, they underestimate warming observed in current data Once again, the 1998 outlier provides fodder for Sir Lancelot’s lies. 1998 was 15 years ago, it’s about time that the deniers like Sir Lancelot stop referring to it.

    The fact that Sir Lancelot is in touch with Judith Curry tells us everything we want to know about him. Curry is the Peter Duesberg of climate science, a once productive scientist who has turned into a crank. She joins Duesberg, Behe, and the late Lynn Margulis in that category.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

  24. 24
    lancifer

    colnago80,

    I’m (briefly) going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just unaware of the current state of climate science.

    Your statement that models “…underestimate warming observed in current data ” is easily demonstrated to be false.

    Educate yourself..

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    I suspect you’ll just reply with a smear of Dr. Hans von Storch and Speigel Online International.

  25. 25
    colnago80

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #24

    A Google search on Prof. Storches name shows the following citations: Breitbart, Wall Street Journal, freerepublic, stormfront, dailycaller. Real impressive company there. Here’s another perspective on the subject.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/

  26. 26
    lancifer

    So you did a Google search of Dr. Hans von Storch a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics and some how found an obscure link that mentions “stormfront” and proceed (as I predicted) to smear the man by association. Nice.

    Then you link to an alarmist fluff piece in the NY Review of Books by an economist.

    I think we’re done here.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site